The efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comprehensive safety profile of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a post-marketing study based on FAERS database using signal detection algorithms

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) have acquired a foothold in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus, but few concerns have arisen regarding their overall safety profile. The aim of this study is to assess the potential risk of DPP-4 inhibitors by analyzing data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study which explored the FAERS database till March 2023 for the collection of safety reports. The disproportionality analysis was performed using signal detection algorithms (SDAs) incorporating frequentist-based data mining approach such as relative reporting ratio (RRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 14,573 adverse event reports were reported in the FAERS public dashboard associated with all the included DPP-4 inhibitors. The computed PRR, ROR, and RRR indicated positive signals for DPP-4 inhibitors with cardiac failure, pancreatitis, pemphigoid, hypoglycemia, acute kidney injury and lactic acidosis. Saxagliptin showed a higher signal score for cardiac failure, while sitagliptin was more associated with pancreatitis. Moreover, alogliptin exhibited an elevated signal score associated with pancreatic carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

Several significant disproportionality signals were observed with DPP-4 inhibitors. However, clinicians have to consider the comorbidities and concomitant drugs while prescribing these drugs.

Benefits and risks of drug combination therapy for diabetes mellitus and its complications: a comprehensive review

Diabetes is a chronic metabolic disease, and its therapeutic goals focus on the effective management of blood glucose and various complications. Drug combination therapy has emerged as a comprehensive treatment approach for diabetes. An increasing number of studies have shown that, compared with monotherapy, combination therapy can bring significant clinical benefits while controlling blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure, as well as mitigating damage from certain complications and delaying their progression in diabetes, including both type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related complications. This evidence provides strong support for the recommendation of combination therapy for diabetes and highlights the importance of combined treatment. In this review, we first provided a brief overview of the phenotype and pathogenesis of diabetes and discussed several conventional anti-diabetic medications currently used for the treatment of diabetes. We then reviewed several clinical trials and pre-clinical animal experiments on T1D, T2D, and their common complications to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different classes of drug combinations. In general, combination therapy plays a pivotal role in the management of diabetes. Integrating the effectiveness of multiple drugs enables more comprehensive and effective control of blood glucose without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or other serious adverse events. However, specific treatment regimens should be tailored to individual patients and implemented under the guidance of healthcare professionals.

Use of diabetes medications in adults with T2D and CVD in Japan: secondary analysis of the CAPTURE study

Introduction

The CAPTURE study estimated the global prevalence of established cardiovascular disease (CVD) and characterized the usage of glucose-lowering agents (GLAs) in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across 13 countries. The purpose of this secondary analysis of data from the Japanese sites within CAPTURE (NCT03786406, NCT03811288) was to provide data about medication usage stratified by CVD status among Japanese participants with T2D.

Materials and methods

Data on GLA usage (including those with proven cardiovascular [CV] benefits) in Japanese participants with T2D managed in clinics or hospitals were collected and stratified by CVD subgroups.

Results

There were 800 Japanese participants in the CAPTURE study (n = 502 [no CVD group], n = 298 [CVD group], n = 268 [atherosclerotic CVD subgroup]). Oral antidiabetic agents and insulin were used by 88.5% and 23.4%, respectively, of participants overall. Among participants with established CVD, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (65.1%) were most frequently used, followed by biguanides (50.7%) and insulins (26.2%). The pattern was similar among participants with atherosclerotic CVD. A lower proportion of participants in the CVD group used glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) with proven CV benefits versus the no CVD group (GLP-1 RAs: 7.0% vs. 8.6%; SGLT-2is: 13.4% vs. 19.1%).

Conclusion

This analysis of the CAPTURE study provided a comprehensive overview of prescription patterns for the treatment of T2D in Japan. Use of GLAs with proven CV benefit was low, even in participants with established CVD, which was comparable to the findings from the global cohort.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13340-023-00638-w.

Clinical Evidence and Practice-Based Guidelines on the Utility of Basal Insulin Combined Oral Therapy (Metformin and Glimepiride) in the Current Era

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Basal insulin combined oral therapy consisting of insulin and oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) is recommended for type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on OADs. There is a lack of clear evidence and recommendations on the combined use of basal insulin analogues to more than one OADs (glimepiride plus metformin) in effective control of glycemic parameters and its safety in terms of reduced hypoglycemic events, weight gain and cardiovascular risk. In this context, a group of clinical experts discussed the utility of basal insulin combined oral therapy with metformin and glimepiride in the current era.

METHODS

The clinical experts discussed and provided their inputs virtually. The expert panel included clinical experts comprising endocrinologists and diabetologists from India and Nepal.

RESULTS

The panel thoroughly reviewed existing literature on the subject and proposed clinical evidence and practice-based guidelines.

CONCLUSION

These current clinical practice guidelines highlight the efficacy and safety of basal insulin combination therapy with various available basal insulins including neutral protamine hagedorn, detemir, glargine and degludec in addition to metformin and glimepiride therapy.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Weight-centric treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

Chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCD) represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most prevalent CNCD that is associated with a significant medical and economic burden. One of the main modifiable risk factors of T2DM is obesity. Many medications used for T2DM can lead to weight gain, worsening one of the root causes of this disease.

Methods

In this clinical review, we study the effect of medications for T2DM on body weight. We used MEDLINE, Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to search for relevant studies between 1 January 1950 to 20 September 2022 in English language. Here, we review the most prescribed medications for T2DM and summarize their effect on patients' body weight. We will also present an expert opinion on a recommended weight-centric approach to treat T2DM.

Results

Multiple T2DM medications have been associated with weight gain. Insulin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides may increase body weight. However, biguanides (e.g., metformin), glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (e.g., semaglutide, liraglutide, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and amylin analogs (e.g., pramlintide) are associated with significant weight loss. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are considered weight neutral medications. Experts in the fields of endocrinology and obesity recommend utilizing a weight-centric approach when treating T2DM.

Conclusion

Considering the high prevalence and debilitating complication of T2DM, it is of utmost importance to shift from a weight gain approach (i.e., insulin, sulfonylureas) into a weight loss/neutral one (i.e., GLP-1 agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin).

Type 2 diabetics followed up by family physicians: Treatment sequences and changes over time in weight and glycated hemoglobin

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is based on preventive hygiene and dietary measures (HDM), oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and insulin. The objective of the present study was to reuse general practice data from electronic health records and describe changes over time among patients with T2DM in primary care.

METHODS

We analyzed data on patients with T2DM collected by three family physicians in Tourcoing (France) from 2006 to 2018.

RESULTS

403 patients, 1030 treatment sequences, 39,042 appointments, 2440 glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements, and 9722 wt measurements were included. On inclusion, the mean age was 57.0, the mean weight was 84.4 kg, the mean body mass index was 30.3 kg/m², and the median HbA1c level was 6.8 % (51 mmol/mol). The patients were following appropriate HDM (40.7 %) and/or were being treated with OADs (54.1 %) or insulin (5.2 %). The median length of follow-up was 3.51 years. Overall, bodyweight was stable for two years during HDM and then increased. The HbA1c level decreased and then increased during HDM, was stable on OADs, and then decreased on insulin.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The present descriptive results may be of value in helping to predict changes over time in bodyweight and HbA1c in T2DM.

Comparison of Efficacy of Glimepiride, Alogliptin, and Alogliptin-Pioglitazone as the Initial Periods of Therapy in Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

The choice of an optimal oral hypoglycemic agent in the initial treatment periods for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients remains difficult and deliberate. We compared the efficacy and safety of glimepiride (GLIM), alogliptin (ALO), and alogliptin-pioglitazone (ALO-PIO) in poorly controlled T2DM patients with drug-naïve or metformin failure.

METHODS

In this three-arm, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, poorly controlled T2DM patients were randomized to receive GLIM (n=35), ALO (n=31), or ALO-PIO (n=33) therapy for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in the mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels at week 24 from baseline. Secondary endpoints were changes in HbA1c level at week 12 from baseline, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, lipid profiles at weeks 12 and 24, and parameters of glycemic variability, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

At weeks 12 and 24, the ALO-PIO group showed significant reduction in HbA1c levels compared to the ALO group (-0.96%±0.17% vs. -0.37%±0.17% at week 12; -1.13%±0.19% vs. -0.18%±0.2% at week 24). The ALO-PIO therapy caused greater reduction in FPG levels and significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at weeks 12 and 24 than the ALO therapy. Compared to low-dose GLIM therapy, ALO-PIO therapy showed greater improvement in glycemic variability. The adverse events were similar among the three arms.

CONCLUSION

ALO-PIO combination therapy during the early period exerts better glycemic control than ALO monotherapy and excellency in glycemic variability than low-dose sulfonylurea therapy in uncontrolled, drug-naïve or metformin failed T2DM patients.

Active coating of immediate-release evogliptin tartrate to prepare fixed dose combination tablet with sustained-release metformin HCl

This study was aimed to develop a fixed dose combination (FDC) tablet containing a low dose of evogliptin tartrate (6.87 mg) for immediate release combined with a high dose (1000 mg) of sustained-release (SR) metformin HCl appropriate for once daily dosing the treatment of type 2 diabetes. To prepare the FDC tablets, an active coating was used in this study, whereby evogliptin tartrate film was layered on a matrix core tablet containing metformin HCl. To overcome the problem caused by a low-dose drug in combination with a relatively large matrix tablet containing high-dose drug, it was also aimed to confirm the formulation and coating operation for satisfactory content uniformity, and to describe the chemical stability during storage of the amorphous active coating layer formulation in relation to molecular mobility. Furthermore, the in vitro release and in vivo pharmacokinetic profiles of metformin HCl and evogliptin tartrate in the FDC active coating tablet were compared to those of the commercially marketed reference drugs, Diabex XR® (Daewoong, Seoul, Korea) containing metformin HCl and Suganon® (Donga ST, Seoul, Korea) containing evogliptin tartrate. In conclusion, the newly developed FDC active coating tablet in this study was confirmed to be bioequivalent to the reference marketed products in beagle dogs, with satisfactory content uniformity and stability.

Time to Treatment Intensification in Patients Receiving DPP4 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylureas as the First Add-On to Metformin Monotherapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: To verify whether, in patients on metformin (MET) monotherapy for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the add-on of a dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitor (DPP4i) compared to a sulfonylurea (SU) can delay the time to the subsequent treatment intensification (TI).

Methods: Population-based administrative data banks from four Italian geographic areas were used. Patients aged ≥18 years on MET monotherapy receiving first DPP4i or SU dispensing between 2008 and 2015 (cohort entry) were followed up to the occurrence of TI (insulin dispensing or add-on of a third non-insulin hypoglicemic >180 days after cohort entry), treatment discontinuation, switch, cancer, death, TI occurrence within, end of data availability, end of study period (31 December 2016), whichever came first. Patients on MET + DPP4i were matched 1:1 with those on MET + SU by sex, age, year of cohort entry, and data bank. Hazard Ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated using multivariable Cox regression model including matching variables and potential confounders measured at baseline. Different sensitivity analyses were performed: i) matching at 180 days after cohort entry, ii) intent to treat (ITT) analysis, iii) matching by duration of MET monotherapy, iv) matching by propensity score.

Results: The matched study cohort included 10,600 patients. Overall, 763 TI were observed (4.5/100 person-years; mean follow-up = 1.6 years). The primary analysis showed no difference in time to TI between the two groups (HR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.88–1.19). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this result, except from the ITT analysis (HR = 1.27; 1.13–1.43).

Conclusion: The use of a DPP4i rather than a SU as add-on to MET monotherapy was not associated with a delay in treatment intensification.

Safety of add-on sulfonylurea therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes using metformin: a population-based real-world study

INTRODUCTION

Metformin is the initial oral antihyperglycemic agent (OHA) of choice for most patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, more than one agent is often required for optimal glucose control. As the choice of preferred second OHAs is less well defined, we sought to compare the real-world safety of sulfonylureas to other OHAs as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults in Manitoba, Canada with T2D from 2006 to 2017. Using a new-user design, we divided patients who started on metformin into two groups: add-on therapy with a sulfonylurea and add-on therapy with a different OHA. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and major hypoglycemic episodes. We calculated propensity scores and applied inverse probability of treatment weights to each individual. We compared groups using Cox proportional hazards regression and explored differences in HRs between pre-2008 (acarbose, meglitinides, and thiazolidinediones) and post-2008 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose linked transporter-2 inhibitors) OHAs.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 32 576 individuals (28 077 metformin plus sulfonylurea and 4499 metformin plus 'other'). Patients newly prescribed a sulfonylurea in the setting of metformin had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.84, p=0.005) and major hypoglycemic episodes (HR 2.78, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.66, p<0.001) than those prescribed an 'other' OHA. No differences in cardiovascular events were observed (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22, p=0.92). In subgroup analyses, mortality and cardiovascular event risk was higher in patients prescribed sulfonylureas versus post-2008 OHAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfonylureas as add-on therapy to metformin are associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and major hypoglycemic episodes compared with 'other' OHAs. Post hoc analysis suggests newer OHAs may be preferred to sulfonylureas as second-line therapy for glycemic control.

Post Hoc Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Antihyperglycemic Background Therapies on Attainment of A1C Targets Without Hypoglycemia in the ACHIEVE Control Pragmatic, Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

ACHIEVE Control, a prospective, open-label, randomized, pragmatic, real-life study in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes (A1C 8.0-11.0%), demonstrated superiority of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) versus first-generation standard-of-care basal insulin (SOC-BI; glargine 100 units/mL or insulin detemir) in achieving individualized A1C targets without documented symptomatic (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL] or <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycemia (American Diabetes Association level 3) at 6 months. Noninsulin antihyperglycemic background therapies are commonly used; however, sulfonylureas may increase hypoglycemia risk. This post hoc analysis assessed outcomes according to background therapy.

METHODS

Subgroup analyses were performed per concomitant use/nonuse of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. End points (6 and 12 months) included A1C target attainment without documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia, A1C target attainment, and absence of documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

Odds ratios (ORs) at 12 months mostly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI across subgroups except in analysis of SGLT2 inhibitors, in which ORs were similar. Among sulfonylurea users, ORs at 12 months strongly favored Gla-300 versus SOC-BI for all end points, particularly A1C target achievement without documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53) or severe hypoglycemia and achievement of no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (glucose <3.0 mmol/L [<54 mg/dL]; OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.52) or severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that, in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, Gla-300 is effective with a risk of hypoglycemia that is lower than or similar to that of SOC-BI regardless of background medication. Individuals receiving concomitant sulfonylureas were more likely to remain without symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia with Gla-300.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin Compared to Sulfonylureas for Type 2 Diabetes as Second-Line Treatment in Indian Healthcare Payer's Perspective

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a leading health issue, causing economic burden in India. Pharmacotherapy is a major cost driver in diabetic care usually funded through out of pocket expenditure; however, there has been a very limited economic evaluation evidence to guide the choice of diabetes pharmacotherapy in India. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitor) compared to commonly used sulfonylureas as second-line drugs in Indian patients with T2DM.

Methods

Cost-utility analysis was employed to estimate the costs and health outcomes using a Markov model with 1-year cycle length during a lifetime horizon based on an Indian payer’s perspective. A treatment pathway with dapagliflozin as second-line therapy was compared to sulfonylureas after failure of initial metformin therapy. Clinical and cost data were collected from literature reviews and available secondary data sources. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. The results were presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test parameter uncertainties.

Results

Compared to sulfonylurea, dapagliflozin was estimated to incur an additional cost of ₹182,632 (US$2,446) with an expected 3.49 life years (LY) or 1.72 quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, resulting in an ICER of ₹52,270 (US$699) per LY gained, or ₹106,133 (US$1,421) per QALY gained. Uncertainty analyses showed that the ICER values were not sensitive to changes in most parameters.

Conclusion

Dapagliflozin would be cost-effective compared to sulfonylureas as the second line added to metformin for T2DM patients based on an Indian payer’s perspective.

Efficacy / safety balance of DPP-4 inhibitors versus SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) offer new options for the oral management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with the advantage in the elderly population to be devoid of a high risk of hypoglycaemia. SGLT2is have also shown benefits regarding cardiovascular (heart failure) and renal protection, including in patients with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years while DPP-4is have only proved cardiovascular and renal safety without superiority compared with placebo. The glucose-lowering efficacy of the two pharmacological classes is almost similar including in older patients with T2DM. However, the tolerance and safety profile may be highly different and overall more favourable with DPP-4is than with SGLT2is. Some adverse events have been reported with SGLT2is which may be more prevalent or severe in older patients than in younger patients. The present comprehensive review focuses on the benefit/risk balance in the elderly population with T2DM by comparing the profile of DPP-4is and SGLT2is regarding the following potential issues: metabolic disorders (hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis); cardiac and vascular issues (atheromatous cardiovascular disease, heart failure, volume reduction hypotension, and lower limb amputations); renal endpoints including acute renal injury; risk of infections; digestive disorders; bone and skin adverse events; and cancer risk. Both DPP-4is and SGLT2is have their own advantages and disadvantages. Personalised treatment is recommended based upon the efficacy/safety profile of each drug class and individual patient characteristics that may be markedly different among the heterogeneous population of older individuals with T2DM.

Time trends in diabetes medication prescription and factors associated with metformin discontinuation in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: A national population-based study

OBJECTIVE

To describe, based on the French National Health Insurance (NHI) data, time trends in diabetes medications after treatment initiation in two consecutive cohorts of people newly treated for type 2 diabetes (T2D) in 2008 (1st cohort) and 2013 (2nd cohort).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People, aged 45 years and older, newly treated for T2D in 2008 and 2013 were identified in the French NHI Data System. Treatment changes were collected for each year of follow-up. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with metformin discontinuation.

RESULTS

Respectively, 157 940 and 160 670 beneficiaries (mean age: 63 and 64 years; men proportion: 53 and 52%) of the French NHI general scheme initiated a diabetes treatment in 2008 and 2013. Metformin was the first monotherapy and increased in use: 67% of monotherapies in 2008 versus 77% in 2013. Monotherapy percentage decreased from the second year onwards in both cohorts. A marked increase in metformin-DPP4i combination therapy was observed (14% of dual therapies in 2008 vs. 46% in 2015 in the first cohort), replacing the metformin-sulfonylureas combination as a second-line treatment. Metformin discontinuation was statistically associated with female gender, social deprivation, age and anti-diabetic polypharmacy. Discontinuation of diabetes treatment was observed after 5 years for, respectively, 10% and 13% in the first and second cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Descriptive analysis of two consecutive national cohorts showed an evolution in the prescription patterns of anti-diabetic treatments over a short period. With early treatment intensification, increasing rate of metformin monotherapy, and changes in dual-therapy strategy.

Optimization of bilayer tablet manufacturing process for fixed dose combination of sustained release high-dose drug and immediate release low-dose drug based on quality by design (QbD)

A fixed dose combination (FDC) bilayer tablet, consisting of high-dose metformin HCl in a sustained release layer and low-dose evogliptin tartrate in an immediate release layer, was developed based on a quality by design (QbD) approach. To implement QbD approach, the bilayer tableting process parameters judged as high risk through risk analysis were optimized by a central composite face-centered design as a design of experiment (DOE) methodology. Using DOE, the optimized conditions of the tableting process for drug products that satisfy the established quality target product profiles were obtained. The content uniformity of low-dose evogliptin tartrate in the optimized bilayer tablet prepared on a large scale was confirmed by at-line transmittance Raman spectroscopy as a process analytical technology. In addition, the in vitro drug release and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies showed that metformin HCl and evogliptin tartrate in the bilayer tablet is bioequivalent to those of the respective reference drugs. Furthermore, the physicochemical stability of the optimized bilayer tablet during storage under long-term and accelerated conditions was also confirmed. Therefore, it can be concluded that the QbD approach is an effective way to develop a new FDC bilayer tablet that is easy to scale up for successful commercialization.

Efficacy and Safety of Ertugliflozin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled by Metformin and Sulfonylurea: A Sub-Study of VERTIS CV

INTRODUCTION

VERTIS CV is the cardiovascular outcome trial for the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor ertugliflozin. A sub-study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately glycemic-controlled on metformin and a sulfonylurea (SU).

METHODS

Patients with T2DM, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and an HbA1c of 7.0-10.5% on stable metformin (≥ 1500 mg/day) and moderate to high SU doses were randomly assigned to once-daily ertugliflozin (5 or 15 mg) or placebo. The primary sub-study objectives were to assess the effect of ertugliflozin on HbA1c compared with placebo and to evaluate safety following 18 weeks of treatment. Key secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight (BW), blood pressure (BP), and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%.

RESULTS

Of the 8246 patients enrolled in VERTIS CV, 330 were eligible for this sub-study (ertugliflozin 5 mg, n = 100; ertugliflozin 15 mg, n = 113; placebo, n = 117). This subgroup had a mean (SD) age of 63.2 (8.4) years and T2DM duration of 11.4 (7.4) years. At week 18, ertugliflozin 5 mg and 15 mg were each associated with significantly greater least squares (LS) mean reductions from baseline in HbA1c relative to placebo (placebo-adjusted LS mean [95% CI] - 0.66% [- 0.89, - 0.43] and - 0.75% [- 0.98, - 0.53], respectively, p < 0.001 for each dose vs placebo). Ertugliflozin significantly reduced FPG and BW compared with placebo (p < 0.001), but not systolic BP. Adverse events were reported in 48.0%, 54.9%, and 47.0% of patients in the ertugliflozin 5 mg and 15 mg, and placebo groups. The incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 11.0% (5 mg), 12.4% (15 mg), and 7.7% (placebo), and of severe hypoglycemia 2.0% (5 mg), 1.8% (15 mg), and 0.9% (placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM and ASCVD, ertugliflozin added to metformin and SU improved glycemic control, reduced BW, and was generally well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

VERTIS CV ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01986881.

Impact of Systemic Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Use in Diabetic Macular Edema

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate impact of baseline systemic dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use in diabetic macular edema (DME).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a post hoc exploratory analysis of previously completed randomized, controlled clinical trials (VISTA and VIVID) in patients with DME evaluating intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) every 4 weeks (2q4) or every 8 weeks (2q8) or macular laser photocoagulation.

RESULTS

Overall, a small number of patients (12.2% [n = 35], 9.7% [n = 28], and 15.4% [n = 44]) in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups reported baseline DPP-4 inhibitor use. There were no differences in changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity, central subfield thickness, or rates of 2-or-greater-step improvement in Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale score based on DPP-4 inhibitor use within each treatment group.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline did not influence the magnitude of visual and anatomic benefit in patients with DME being treated with IAI or laser. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:226-234.].

Trends in diabetes medication use in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland: a repeated cross-sectional analysis in primary care

Background

Several new classes of glucose-lowering medications have been introduced in the past two decades. Some, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2s), have evidence of improved cardiovascular outcomes, while others, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4s), do not. It is therefore important to identify their uptake in order to find ways to support the use of more effective treatments.

Aim

To analyse the uptake of these new classes among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Design and setting

This was a retrospective repeated cross-sectional analysis in primary care. Rates of medication uptake in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland were compared.

Method

Primary care Electronic Medical Data on prescriptions (Canada, UK) and dispensing data (Australia) from 2012 to 2017 were used. Individuals aged ≥40 years on at least one glucose-lowering drug class in each year of interest were included, excluding those on insulin only. Proportions of patients in each nation, for each year, on each class of medication, and on combinations of classes were determined.

Results

Data from 238 619 patients were included in 2017. The proportion of patients on sulfonylureas (SUs) decreased in three out of four nations, while metformin decreased in Canada. Use of combinations of metformin and new drug classes increased in all nations, replacing combinations involving SUs. In 2017, more patients were on DPP4s (between 19.1% and 27.6%) than on SGLT2s (between 10.1% and 15.3%).

Conclusion

New drugs are displacing SUs. However, despite evidence of better outcomes, the adoption of SGLT2s lagged behind DPP4s.

Repurposing of Omarigliptin as a Neuroprotective Agent Based on Docking with A2A Adenosine and AChE Receptors, Brain GLP-1 Response and Its Brain/Plasma Concentration Ratio after 28 Days Multiple Doses in Rats Using LC-MS/MS

The authors in the current work suggested the potential repurposing of omarigliptin (OMR) for neurodegenerative diseases based on three new findings that support the preliminary finding of crossing BBB after a single dose study in the literature. The first finding is the positive results of the docking study with the crystal structures of A_2A adenosine (A2AAR) and acetylcholine esterase (AChE) receptors. A2AAR is a member of non-dopaminergic GPCR superfamily receptor proteins and has essential role in regulation of glutamate and dopamine release in Parkinson’s disease while AChE plays a major role in Alzheimer’s disease as the primary enzyme responsible for the hydrolytic metabolism of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine into choline and acetate. Docking showed that OMR perfectly fits into A2AAR binding pocket forming a distinctive hydrogen bond with Threonine 256. Besides other non-polar interactions inside the pocket suggesting the future of the marketed anti-diabetic drug (that cross BBB) as a potential antiparkinsonian agent while OMR showed perfect fit inside AChE receptor binding site smoothly because of its optimum length and the two fluorine atoms that enables quite lean fitting. Moreover, a computational comparative study of OMR docking, other 12 DPP-4 inhibitors and 11 SGLT-2 inhibitors was carried out. Secondly, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) concentration in rats’ brain tissue was determined by the authors using sandwich GLP-1 ELISA kit bio-analysis to ensure the effect of OMR after the multiple doses’ study. Brain GLP-1 concentration was elevated by 1.9-fold following oral multiple doses of OMR (5 mg/kg/day, p.o. for 28 days) as compared to the control group. The third finding is the enhanced BBB crossing of OMR after 28 days of multiple doses that had been studied using LC-MS/MS method with enhanced liquid–liquid extraction. A modified LC-MS/MS method was established for bioassay of OMR in rats’ plasma (10–3100 ng/mL) and rats’ brain tissue (15–2900 ng/mL) using liquid–liquid extraction. Alogliptin (ALP) was chosen as an internal standard (IS) due to its LogP value of 1.1, which is very close to the LogP of OMR. Extraction of OMR from samples of both rats’ plasma and rats’ brain tissue was effectively achieved with ethyl acetate as the extracting solvent after adding 1N sodium carbonate to enhance the drug migration, while choosing acetonitrile to be the diluent solvent for the IS to effectively decrease any emulsion between the layers in the stated method of extraction. Validation results were all pleasing including good stability studies with bias of value below 20%. Concentration of OMR in rats’ plasma were determined after 2 h of the latest dose from 28 days multiple doses, p.o, 5 mg/kg/day. It was found to be 1295.66 ± 684.63 ng/mL estimated from the bio-analysis regression equation. OMR passed through the BBB following oral administration and exhibited concentration of 543.56 ± 344.15 ng/g in brain tissue, taking in consideration the dilution factor of 10. The brain/plasma concentration ratio of 0.42 (543.56/1295.66) was used to illustrate the penetration power through the BBB after the multiple doses for 28 days. Results showed that OMR passed through the BBB more effectively in the multiple dose study as compared to the previously published single dose study by the authors. Thus, the present study suggests potential repositioning of OMR as antiparkinsonian agent that will be of interest for researchers interested in neurodegenerative diseases.

Electronic medical records-based comparison of glycemic control efficacy between sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors added on to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Sulfonylurea (SU) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are most common secondary agents that are added to metformin monotherapy. Real-world studies have become increasingly important in providing evidence of treatment effectiveness in clinical practice and real-world data could help appropriate therapeutic information. Therefore, this study aims to compare the glycemic effectiveness of SU and DPP-4 inhibitors, which are added to metformin monotherapy in real clinical practice using electronic medical record (EMR) data. EMR data of type 2 diabetes patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital from December 2002 to December 2012 were retrieved and analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups: patients who maintained metformin monotherapy (M), and patients who added SU (MS) or DPP-4 inhibitors (MD) to metformin monotherapy. The mean change in HbA1c level, the proportion of patients achieving the HbA1c target < 7.0%, proportion of patients with treatment failure, and probability of treatment failure occurrence and changes in prescription were evaluated to compare glycemic control efficacy between SU and DPP-4 inhibitors. The MS showed significantly greater reduction in the Hb1Ac level than MD. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% is higher in MD, whereas the proportion of patients with treatment failure was greater in MS. The probability of the treatment failure and probability of changes in the prescription were lower in MD than MS with hazard ratio of 0.499 and 0.579, respectively. In conclusion, this real-world study suggested that DPP-4 inhibitors are expected to show more durable glycemic control efficacy than SU in long-term use.

Effect of Dosage Reduction of Hypoglycemic Multidrug Regimens on the Incidences of Acute Glycemic Complications in People With Type 2 Diabetes Who Fast During Ramaḍān: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the effect of dosage reduction of four hypoglycemic multidrug regimens on the incidences of acute glycemic complications in people with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramaḍān.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial at a tertiary care center in Amman, Jordan. We recruited adults with type 2 diabetes who expressed an intention to fast during Ramaḍān and were adherent to one of four regimens-namely: metformin and glimepiride; metformin and vildagliptin; metformin and insulin glargine U100; or, metformin, insulin glargine U100, and human regular insulin. We randomly assigned participants in a 2:1 ratio to low- or regular-dosage therapy. The primary outcomes were the incidences of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia during the 29 days of Ramaḍān 2017, and the secondary outcomes were the incidences of diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state during the same period.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned 687 participants to low-dosage therapy (n = 458) or regular-dosage therapy (n = 229) and included 678 (452 and 226, respectively) in the final analysis. The incidence of hypoglycemia was lower in the low-dosage group compared with the regular-dosage group (19 [4.2%] vs. 52 [23.0%], respectively; OR, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.08-0.26]; P < 0.001). The incidence of hyperglycemia did not differ between the low- and regular-dosage groups (319 [70.6%] vs. 154 [68.1%], respectively; OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.79-1.58]; P = 0.5). No participants experienced diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Each 1% decrease in the baseline HbA_1c concentration was associated with a 19.9-fold (95% CI, 9.6-41.5; P < 0.001) increase in the odds of hypoglycemia, and each 1% increase in the baseline HbA_1c concentration was associated with a 15.7-fold (95% CI, 10.0-24.6; P < 0.001) increase in the odds of hyperglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Dosage reduction decreases the incidence of hypoglycemia without a concomitant increase in the incidences of hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state in people with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramaḍān.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04237493.

Management of type 2 diabetes for prevention of cardiovascular disease. An expert opinion of the Italian Diabetes Society

AIMS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterized by an increased risk of developing long-term cardiovascular complications. Several underlying mechanisms have been proposed for the diabetes-related increase in cardiovascular risk, i.e. chronic hyperglycemia, duration of the disease, drug-induced hypoglycemia, coexistence of multiple cardiovascular risk factors, etc. In the last few years, new pharmacological approaches capable of treating chronic hyperglycemia without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia have emerged for the treatment of diabetes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

With data mainly obtained from randomized controlled trials recruiting patients with type 2 diabetes in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, some of these newer antihyperglycemic drugs have shown to significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. In addition, the combined control of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, e.g. dyslipidemia, hypertension, etc., has demonstrated to be effective in reducing the burden of cardiovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this document written by some experts of the Italian diabetes society (SID), we will focus our attention on oral antihyperglycemic agents for people with type 2 diabetes in primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, excluding for brevity the injection therapies for diabetes, such as insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to other oral glucose-lowering medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), which belong to the class of incretin-based medications, are recommended as second or third-line therapies in guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They have a favorable drug tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering agents.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses data concerning the use of DPP-4is and their cardiovascular profile, and gives an updated comparison with the other oral glucose-lowering medications with regards to safety and efficacy. Currently available original studies, abstracts, reviews articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the review.

DISCUSSION

DPP4is are moderately efficient in decreasing the HbA1c by an average of 0.5% as monotherapy, and 1.0% in combination therapy with other drugs. They have a good tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering drugs. However, there are possible risks pertaining to acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular outcome trials thus far have proven the cardiovascular safety for ischemic events in patients treated with sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin and vildagliptin. Data showing increased rate of hospitalisation in the case of saxagliptin did not seem to be a class effect.

Efficacy and safety of dual add-on therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus glimepiride in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin: Results from a 52-week, randomized, active-controlled trial

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin (DAPA) + saxagliptin (SAXA) compared with glimepiride (GLIM) in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5-10.5% (58-91 mmol/mol)] on metformin monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled study (NCT02419612) randomized (1:1) patients on metformin to add-on DAPA 10 mg + SAXA 5 mg (n = 227) or GLIM 1-6 mg (titrated; n = 217). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52.

RESULTS

Baseline mean ± standard deviation of age, duration of diabetes and HbA1c were 56.1 ± 9.7 years, 7.8 ± 6.4 years and 8.5% ± 0.8% (69 ± 9.0 mmol/mol), respectively. Adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -1.35% (-14.8 mmol/mol) with DAPA + SAXA versus -0.98% (-10.7 mmol/mol) with GLIM (P <0.001). Changes from baseline in body weight and systolic blood pressure were -3.1 kg and -2.6 mmHg with DAPA + SAXA versus +1.0 kg (P <0.001) and +1.0 mmHg (P = 0.007) with GLIM. More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) (44.3% vs. 34.3%; P = 0.044), and fewer patients required treatment intensification (1.3% vs. 8.8%; P = 0.002) with DAPA + SAXA than with GLIM.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with GLIM, concurrent addition of DAPA + SAXA significantly improved glycaemic control, body weight and other metabolic parameters in patients inadequately controlled on metformin. Trial: NCT02419612, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Use of incretin-based medications: what do current international recommendations suggest with respect to GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors?

In recent years guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have evolved substantially. Initially limited to a few glucose lowering agents, early guidelines predicated strict glycemic control as a main goal in the attempt to reduce the risk of long-term diabetic complications. Nowadays, guidelines are not limited to such a goal but include cardiovascular (and renal) protection. This rapid evolution was made possible by the introduction of new glucose lowering agents, which have been extensively tested in randomized clinical studies including large cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). In this review we will specifically consider the use of incretin-based medications in T2DM as recommended in the recent ADA/EASD consensus, and other international guidelines, with special consideration of their glucose-lowering efficacy, their cardiovascular (and renal) benefit, their effect on body weight and risk of hypoglycemia, as well as the economic implications for their use.

Twenty-year trends in the prescription costs of Type 2 diabetes: Real world data and empirical analysis in Greece

AIMS

To estimate and compare the prescription costs for the management of patients with diabetes over a period of 20 years in Greece, based on real world data.

METHODS

The records of outpatients with T2D, monitored at three diabetes centres, were examined in four cross-sections (1998, 2006, 2012, 2018). Prescribed medicines per patient, along with a set of clinical indicators were recorded. Annual costs of pharmaceutical treatment per patient were calculated by using each year's nominal retail prices, as well as by adjusting for 2018 price levels, in order to account for price differences over time.

RESULTS

4066 patients were included in the analysis. Prescription patterns indicate a quick uptake of the new classes of glucose-lowering drugs and a reduction in the proportional use of sulfonylurea and glitazone. Adjusting for 2018 prices, the average total annual prescription cost per patient was 381.54 Euros (s.d. 297.44) in 1998 and 1147.21 Euros (s.d. 814.39) in 2018. Glucose-lowering drug costs per patient increase from 1998 onwards, whereas the costs of antihypertensive, antiplatelet and lipid-lowering treatment declined gradually, especially after 2006.

CONCLUSIONS

Per patient prescription costs for glucose-lowering drugs present a steep increase, in Greece over the last 20 years. Real-world evidence studies that compare this increase with the changes in patient outcomes are essential in order to examine whether a costs-vs-outcomes balance is optimal.

Effect of Dipeptidyl-Peptidase 4 Inhibitors on Circulating Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Pre-clinical studies suggested potential cardiovascular benefits of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), however, clinical trials showed neither beneficial nor detrimental effects in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We examined the effects of DPP4i on several circulating oxidative stress markers in a cohort of 32 T2DM patients (21 males and 11 post-menopausal females), who were already on routine antidiabetic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to adjust demographic and clinical characteristics between patients who received and who did not receive DPP4i. Whole-blood reactive oxygen species (ROS), plasma advanced glycation end products (AGEs), advanced oxidation protein products (AOPP), carbonyl residues, as well as ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) and leukocyte DNA oxidative damage (Fpg sites), were evaluated. With the exception of Fpg sites, that showed a borderline increase in DPP4i users compared to non-users (p = 0.0507), none of the biomarkers measured was affected by DPP4i treatment. An inverse correlation between estimated glomerular filtration rate and AGEs (p < 0.0001) and Fpg sites (p < 0.05) was also observed. This study does not show any major effect of DPP4i on oxidative stress, assessed by several circulating biomarkers of oxidative damage, in propensity score-matched cohorts of T2DM patients.

Rationale, Design, and Methods of the Study of Comparison of Canagliflozin vs. Teneligliptin Against Basic Metabolic Risks in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (CANTABILE study): Protocol for a Randomized, Parallel-Group Comparison Trial

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are widely used antidiabetic drugs. However, to date, no studies have directly compared the effects of these two drugs on the components of the metabolic syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

OBJECTIVES

The Comparison of Canagliflozin vs. Teneligliptin against Basic Metabolic Risks in Patients with T2DM (CANTABILE) study aims to examine whether the DPP-4 inhibitor (teneligliptin) or the SGLT2 inhibitor (canagliflozin) is the more effective drug for reducing metabolic risk factors as a composite in Japanese patients with T2DM.

METHODS

The CANTABILE study is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group comparison study. A total of 200 patients with T2DM treated with metformin alone or without glucose-lowering agents will be enrolled if they have one or more of the metabolic risk factors, such as obesity, borderline high blood pressure, and dyslipidemia. They will then will be randomized into the Teneligliptin group or the Canagliflozin group and treated for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint is the composite ratio of subjects with one or more improved metabolic risk factors. The secondary endpoints are the changes in each component of the primary endpoint.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The CANTABILE study provides valuable evidence to indicate the suitability of SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP-4 inhibitors for Japanese patients with T2DM and metabolic risks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry number: UMIN000030343.

FUNDING

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation.

Vildagliptin Versus α-Glucosidase Inhibitor as Add-On to Metformin for Type 2 Diabetes: Subgroup Analysis of the China Prospective Diabetes Study

INTRODUCTION

The effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DDP-4) inhibitors versus α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in a real-world setting is unknown. The aim of this real-world study was to compare the glucose-lowering effect and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on to metformin monotherapy (VM) and AGI as add-on to metformin monotherapy (AM) in Chinese patients with T2DM.

METHODS

This was a subgroup analysis of the China Prospective Diabetes Study, a post-marketing, prospective, observational, real-world study conducted at 52 centers in China. T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy who received VM or AM were included. The composite primary endpoint was glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] < 7%) after 12 months in the absence of tolerability events (hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 3%, or gastrointestinal events leading to treatment discontinuation). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the two groups.

RESULTS

The success rates of the composite endpoint were higher in the VM group (n = 604/159 before/after PSM) than in the AM group (n = 159/157 before/after PSM), but the difference was not statistically significant (before PSM: 53.0 vs. 46.5%, P = 0.148; after PSM: 56.7 vs. 45.9%, P = 0.055). The glycemic control rate and HbA1c reduction were similar between groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. Compared with the AM group, the VM group had lower risks of any tolerability event (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.83, P = 0.006), of any adverse event (AE) (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-1.00, P = 0.049), and of any serious AE (RR  0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.81, P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The results of this real-world study suggest that vildagliptin as add-on to metformin monotherapy had a similar glucose-lowering effect to AGI as add-on to metformin monotherapy, but with better safety.

Do GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is reduce cardiovascular events in black patients with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

While recent cardiovascular safety trials (CVST) concerning newer diabetes medications included mostly white participants, results are being generalized to all races in recent guidelines. This raises a controversial question regarding the appropriateness of applying CVST data to black patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched for randomized trials comparing diabetes medications to placebo in type 2 diabetes and investigated three- or four-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Data concerning black patients were then extracted. As the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) updated their recommendations for patients with established cardiovascular risk based on the CVST showing cardiovascular benefit, we performed a sensitivity analysis by including those trials only.

RESULTS

A total of 11 trials were included, investigating a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) in five, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) in two and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) in four. Of the 102 416 participants enrolled in the included trials, only 4601 were black (4.5%). Pooled results showed no significant difference in the incidence of MACE among diabetes medications (GLP-1RA, SGLT-2i or DPP-4i) and placebo in black patients with type 2 diabetes (relative risk [RR] [95% CI], 0.94 [0.77,1.16]). Restricting the analysis to different classes of diabetes medication, the results remained non-significant. Restricting the analysis to CVST with significant outcomes, the results remained non-significant (RR [95% CI], 0.97 [0.68,1.39]).

CONCLUSIONS

Given that black patients with type 2 diabetes were not well represented in CVSTs and such trials were underpowered to evaluate racial differences, it remains unclear whether GLP-1RAs or SGLT-2is would reduce cardiovascular risk in such patients, and additional studies targeting black patients are urgently needed.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors versus Other Antidiabetic Drugs Added to Metformin Monotherapy in Diabetic Retinopathy Progression: A Real World-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) as add-on medications to metformin on progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, compared with sulfonylurea (SU) or thiazolidinedione (TZD).

METHODS

We identified 4,447 patients with DPP4i, 6,136 with SU, and 617 with TZD in addition to metformin therapy from the database of Korean National Health Insurance Service between January 2013 and December 2015. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for DR progression. The progression of DR was defined by the procedure code of panretinal photocoagulation, intravitreal injection or vitrectomy; or the addition of diagnostic code of vitreous hemorrhage, retinal detachment, or neovascular glaucoma.

RESULTS

The age and sex-adjusted HR of DR progression was 0.74 for DPP4i add-on group compared with SU add-on group (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.89). This lower risk of DR progression remained significant after additional adjustments for comorbidities, duration of metformin therapy, intravitreal injections and calendar index year (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

This population-based cohort study showed that the use of DPP4i as add-on therapy to metformin did not increase the risk of DR progression compared to SU.

Ten years of experience with DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Achieving and maintaining recommended glycemic targets without causing adverse e ffects, including hypoglycemia, is challenging, especially in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The introduction of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, more than 10 years ago, has provided an alternative to conventional medications for the intensification of glucose-lowering treatment after failure of metformin monotherapy, and therefore, marked an important advance in the management of T2DM. By prolonging the activity of incretin hormones, DPP-4 inhibitors induce insulin release and decrease glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. This results in a more physiologic glycemic control as compared to that ensured by insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides). Overall, DPP-4 inhibitors have a favorable safety profile and can be used without dose adjustments in older adults and in patients with mild renal impairment; they have a neutral effect on body weight and do not cause hypoglycemia by themselves. Safety issues, reported mainly in post-marketing surveillance programs and including cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of acute pancreatitis, are being extensively investigated. The aim of this review is to discuss the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on the treatment of T2DM, after 10 years of experience, with an emphasis on diabetes care in Italy. We will first describe T2DM treatment in Italy and then provide an overview of the main findings from randomized controlled trials, real-world studies and post-marketing surveillance programs with DPP-4 inhibitors.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication, and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Retrospective Cohort Analysis of the Reduced Burden of Hypoglycemia Associated with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Use in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The use of antihyperglycemic agents (AHA), especially insulin and sulfonylureas (SU), is a risk factor for hypoglycemia. Despite the significant clinical and economic burdens associated with hypoglycemia and the decreasing use of SU in favor of other oral AHA, relatively little is known about hypoglycemia trends specific to the use of non-insulin AHA. We sought to estimate annual hypoglycemia event rates and costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who started either SU or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and to predict rates and costs in the absence of DPP-4i.

METHODS

Truven's MarketScan Commercial Claims database was used to estimate hypoglycemia event rates and costs from 2007 to 2013. Hypoglycemia, defined using diagnosis codes, was assessed during the 12 months following SU (n = 245,201) or DPP-4i (n = 176,786) initiation by adults with T2DM. Coefficients from a Poisson regression model used to estimate the impact of patient characteristics on hypoglycemia rates for patients who started SU were used to predict rates for patients who started DPP-4i had they started SU instead.

RESULTS

Hypoglycemia events per 100 patient-years (costs per event) ranged from 5.4 ($565) in 2007 to 10.4 ($1154) in 2013 for patients starting SU; rates (costs) for patients starting DPP-4i ranged from 3.2 ($308) in 2007 to 6.4 ($482) in 2013. Predicted hypoglycemia rates would have been 5.3-9.9 per 100 person-years for patients who started DPP-4i had they started SU instead. Starting DPP-4i, rather than SU, would have resulted in national savings of $750.3 million in healthcare costs due to avoided hypoglycemia events during this period.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypoglycemia rates and costs were consistently higher for patients who started SU rather than DPP-4i. The overall burden of hypoglycemia could be lowered substantially in the USA if, when feasible, patients with T2DM initiate DPP-4i instead of SU.

FUNDING

Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA.

Importance of Mechanical Periodontal Therapy in Patients with Diabetes Type 2 and Periodontitis

Periodontitis is an infectious and inflammatory disease of high prevalence worldwide and constitutes a significant oral health problem. It can lead to tooth loss. In addition, the local inflammatory process can cause the release of inflammatory mediators in the bloodstream and, consequently, contribute to the emergence of systemic effects as cardiovascular and diabetic complications. The purpose of this mini review is to alert health professionals about the risk that periodontitis represents for the onset or exacerbation of complications in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and to emphasize that the mechanical treatment of periodontal disease and reestablishment of oral health are essential for the metabolic control of these patients. The periodontal therapy may help to reduce the risk of systemic complications in diabetes patients. Proper dental management should be suggested by health professionals, mainly from physicians to their patients, in order to improve the health conditions in these individuals.

Comparing once-weekly semaglutide to incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Our aim was to compare once-weekly semaglutide to incretin-based therapies - defined as either dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) or other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) - in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched for randomized trials comparing once-weekly semaglutide to other incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. We pooled trials that compared semaglutide to other GLP-1RA together, and those comparing semaglutide to DPP-4i together. The primary outcome was the change in haemoglobin A_1c over time.

RESULTS

Five trials met our inclusion criteria. There was a significantly greater reduction in haemoglobin A_1c favouring semaglutide when compared to other GLP-1RA or DPP-4i [MD (95% CI) = -0.38% (-0.62, -0.15) and -1.14% (-1.53, -0.75) respectively]. There was a significantly greater weight loss favouring semaglutide when compared to other GLP-1RA or DPP-4i [MD (95% CI) = -2.50 kg (-3.91, -1.09) and -3.19 kg (-3.66, -2.72) respectively]. The proportion of patients achieving glycaemic goals and goal weight loss was greater in semaglutide-treated patients when compared to either other GLP-1RA or DPP-4i. However, semaglutide-treated patients had a significantly higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

While both once-weekly semaglutide and other incretin-based therapies can reduce haemoglobin A_1c, semaglutide causes a more potent haemoglobin A_1c reduction and greater weight loss when compared to other incretin-based therapies. However, this potent effect of semaglutide was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects. Additional studies are needed to determine whether this marked reduction in both haemoglobin A_1c and body weight may translate into improved cardiovascular outcomes.

Comparative Effectiveness of DPP-4 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylurea for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Routine Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Multicenter Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and sulfonylureas are popular second-line therapies for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but there is a paucity of real-world studies comparing their effectiveness in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study on diabetes outpatient clinics comparing the effectiveness of DPP4i versus gliclazide extended release. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints were changes in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and systolic blood pressure. Automated software extracted data from the same clinical electronic chart system at all centers. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to generate comparable cohorts to perform outcome analysis.

RESULTS

We included data on 2410 patients starting DPP4i and 1590 patients starting gliclazide (mainly 30-60 mg/day). At baseline, the two groups differed in disease duration, body weight, blood pressure, HbA1c, fasting glucose, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, liver enzymes, eGFR, prevalence of microangiopathy, and use of metformin. Among DPP4i molecules, no difference in glycemic effectiveness was detected. In matched cohorts (n = 1316/group), patients starting DPP4i, as compared with patients starting gliclazide, experienced greater reductions in HbA1c (- 0.6% versus - 0.4%; p < 0.001), fasting glucose (- 14.1 mg/dl versus - 8.8 mg/dl; p = 0.007), and body weight (- 0.4 kg versus - 0.1 kg; p = 0.006) after an average 6 months follow-up. DPP4i improved glucose control more than gliclazide, especially in patients who had failed with other glucose-lowering medications or were on basal insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

This large retrospective real-world study shows that, in routine clinical practice, starting a DPP4i allows better glycemic control than starting low-dose gliclazide.

FUNDING

The Italian Diabetes Society, with external support from AstraZeneca.

Metformin combined with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or metformin combined with sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes: A real world analysis of the South Korean national cohort

AIMS

We explored the risks associated with metformin plus sulfonylurea (MET + SU) or MET plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (MET + DPP4i) for hypoglycemia, cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with comorbidities.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study is based on the South Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort, enrolling T2D patients with one or more diabetes-related comorbidities who switched from monotherapy to MET + SU or MET + DPP4i between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013. The risk of hypoglycemia, CVD events and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox's proportional hazard modeling and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Overall, 5693 patients with a mean of 2.6 comorbidities in addition to diabetes were included. Compared with MET + SU, MET + DPP4i treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, CVD events and all-cause mortality; adjusted HRs (95% CI), 0.39 (0.18-0.83), 0.72 (0.54-0.97), and 0.64 (0.39-1.05), respectively. Propensity score matching showed comparable results. In further subgroup analyses according to comorbidity type and number, MET + DPP4i was associated with less CVD events and all-cause mortality compared to MET + SU. This increased with more complex comorbid status.

CONCLUSIONS

In T2D patients with comorbidities, MET + DPP4i treatment is associated with lower risks of CVD events and all-cause mortality compared with MET + SU, independent of type or number of comorbidities. A more complex comorbid status further increases this effect.

Prescription patterns and costs of antidiabetic medications in a large group of patients

AIMS

To determine the prescription patterns of antidiabetic medications and the variables associated with their use in a Colombian population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using a systematized database of approximately 3.5 million affiliates of the Colombian Health System. Patients of both genders and all ages treated uninterruptedly with antidiabetic medications for three months (June-August 2015) were included. A database was designed that included sociodemographic, pharmacological, comedication, and cost variables.

RESULTS

A total of 47,532 patients were identified; the mean age was 65.5 years, and 56.3% were women. Among the patients, 56.2% (n=26,691) received medication as monotherapy. The most prescribed medications were metformin, 81.3% (n=38,664), insulins, 33.3% (n=15,848), and sulfonylureas, 21.8% (n=10,370). Among the patients, 92.8% received comedications, including antihypertensives (79.7%), hypolipemiants (65.5%), antiplatelet drugs (56.3%), analgesics (33.9%), antiulcerants (33.1%), and thyroid hormone (17.3%). The cost per 1000 inhabitants/day was $1.21 USD for metformin, $3.89 USD for insulins, and $0.02 USD for glibenclamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, rational prescription habits predominated, however in some cases an overuse of comedications (such as antiulcer drugs) and a large group of patients with high cost formulations were observed. Subsequent effectiveness and cost-benefit analyzes are required.

The safety of gliptins : updated data in 2018

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) are generally considered as glucose-lowering agents with a safe profile in type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review of recent safety data from randomised controlled trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, pharmacovigilance reports regarding alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, with a special focus on risks of hypoglycemia, pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation for heart failure and other new safety issues, such as bone fractures and arthralgia. The safety of DPP-4i use in special populations, elderly patients, patients with renal impairment, liver disease or heart failure, will also be discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4is has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations, with no gastrointestinal adverse effects and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. DPP-4is appear to be associated with a small increased incidence of acute pancreatitis in placebo-controlled trials, although most observational studies are reassuring. Most recent studies with DPP-4is do not confirm the increased risk of hospitalisation for heart failure reported with saxagliptin in SAVOR-TIMI 53, but further post-marketing surveillance is still recommended. New adverse events have been reported such as arthralgia, yet a causal relationship remains unclear.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Recommendations for management of diabetes and its complications during Hajj (Muslim pilgrimage)

Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam and is a must-do for all adult Muslims once in their life provided they are able to do it. Considering the 8.8% global prevalence of diabetes, coupled with the number of Muslims performing Hajj (~2.5 million adult Muslims), it could be estimated that Muslims with diabetes performing Hajj may exceed 220 000 per year. According to Islamic rules, Hajj should not cause severe difficulties for Muslims. The Holy Qur'an specifically exempts from this duty Muslims who are unable physically or financially if it might lead to harmful consequences for the individual. This should be applicable to subjects with diabetes considering its severe and chronic complications. During the Hajj, diet, amount of fluid intake and physical activity may be altered significantly. This exemption from the duty is usually not considered a simple permission; Muhammad the Prophet of Islam mentioned, 'God likes his permission to be fulfilled, as he likes his will to be executed'. However, most Muslims with diabetes prefer to do the Hajj duty, and this may cause major medical challenges for Muslims with diabetes and their healthcare providers. So it is very important that healthcare providers are aware of the possible risks that could happen during the Hajj. People with diabetes may face many health hazards during the Hajj, including but not limited to the 'killer triad': hypoglycemia, foot injury and infections. Many precautions are necessary in the prevention and treatment of possible serious complications. Risk stratification, medication adjustments, proper clinical assessment, and education before doing the Hajj are crucial.